58th  Congress,  )  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.  J  Document 
3d  Session.      j  \   No.  98. 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


LETTER 

FROM 

THE  ACTING  SECRETARY  OF  WAR, 

TRANSMITTING, 

WITH  A  LETTER  FROM  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS,  REPORTS  OF 
EXAMINATION  AND  SURVEY  OF  FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


December  12,  1904. — Keferred  to  the  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors  and  ordered 

to  be  printed  with  map. 


War  Department, 
Washington,  December  12,  1904-. 
Sir:  I  hare  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  letter  from  the  Chief 
of  Engineers,  United  States  Army,  dated  10th  instant,  together  with 
copies  of  reports  by  Col.  S.  M.  Mansfield  and  Col.  Amos  Stickne}-, 
Corps  of  Engineers,  dated  January  31,  1903,  and  June  21,  1904,  of  a 
preliminary  examination  and  survey,  respectively,  of  Flushing  Bay, 
New  York,  made  by  them  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
river  and  harbor  act  approved  June  13,  1902. 
Very  respectfully, 

Robert  Shaw  Oliver, 

Acting  Secretary  of  War. 

The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 


War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  December  10,  1904-. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith,  for  transmission  to  Con- 
gress, reports  dated  January  31, 1903,  by  Col.  S.  M.  Mansfield,  Corps 
of  Engineers,  and  June  21,  1904,  by  Col.  Amos  Stickney,  Corps  of 
Engineers,  upon  preliminary  examination  and  survey,  respectively, 
authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  June  13,  1902,  of 
Flushing  Bay,  New  York,  "with  a  view  to  repairing,  completing,  or 

H  D— 58-3— Vol  50  61 


2 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


£  removing  the  dike  in  said  bay  and  extending  the  channel  to  Ireland 
[IrlandJ  Mills." 

These  reports  have  been  referred  for  consideration  by  the  Board  of 
Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors,  as  required  by  law,  and  attention 
is  respectfully  invited  to  the  Hoard's  report  of  the  1st  instant  in  tenth 
indorsement  herewith,  which  concludes  as  follows: 

After  careful  consideration  the  Board  has  arrived  at  the  following  conclusions: 
The  extension  of  the  existing  improvement  to  Irland  Mills  does  not  seem  to  be 
warranted  either  by  present  or  prospective  demands  of  commerce.  The  Board,  how- 
ever, is  of  the  opinion  that  the  projected  6-foot  channel  can  advantageously  be 
extended  from  the  Broadway  Bridge  to  the  Main  Street  Bridge,  though  with  a  width 
of  100  feet  instead  of  200  feet  between  the  bridges. 

As  to  the  dike,  a  study  of  the  soundings  and  experience  at  other  places  tend  to 
show  that,  except  possibly  at  its  inner  (shore)  end,  it  is  not  an  essential  part  of  the 
improvement.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  at  the  present  time  the  dike  is  a 
serious  menace  to  navigation,  and  the  Board  therefore  recommends  that  it  be  left  as 
it  is  until  it  can  l)e  seen  from  further  developments  whether  that  part  of  the  chan- 
nel along  the  dike  is  maintained  any  better  than  that  portion  of  the  channel  beyond 
the  dike,  and  that  then  it  be  removed  or  repaired  and  extended,  as  developments 
may  indicate  best. 

In  view  of  what  precedes,  the  Board  recommends  as  desirable  the  further 
improvement  of  Flashing  Bay,  New  York,  by  the  United  States,  in  accordance 
with  a  modified  project  which  shall  provide  for  a  channel  200  feet  wide  and  6  feet 
deep  at  low  water,  from  Long  Island  Sound  to  the  Broadway  Bridge,  and  for  a 
channel  of  the  same  depth  and  100  feet  wide  from  the  Broadway  Bridge  to  the 
Main  Street  Bridge,  by  means  of  dredging,  at  an  estimated  cost  of  $23,857.90,  and 
that  no  work  toward  repairing,  completing,  or  removing  the  dike  be  undertaken  at 
present. 

1  concur  in  the  views  and  recommendations  of  the  Board. 
Very  respectfully, 

A.  Mackenzie, 

Brig.  Gen. ,  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Array. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Taft, 

Secretary  of  War. 


preliminary  examination  of  flushing  bay,  new  york. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City.  January  31,  1903. 

General:  Pursuant  to  instructions  contained  in  Department  letter 
of  June  23,  1902.  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  the  following 
report  on  a  preliminary  examination  of  "  Flushing  Bay,  with  a  view 
to  repairing,  completing,  or  removing  the  dike  in  said  bay  and  extend- 
ing the  channel  to  Ireland  Mills." 

Flushing  Bay  is  on  the  north  shore  of  Long  Island,  about  14  miles 
by  water  from  the  Battery,  New  York  City.  It  is'  about  1  mile  wide 
and  2  miles  long.  The  bottom  is  of  soft  mud,  nearly  level,  the  depth 
in  the  original  channel  being  not  much  greater  than  elsewhere.  The 
town  of  Flushing  is  on  the  east  bank  of  Flushing  Creek,  just  above 
the  head  of  the  bay.  In  1861  a  depth  of  5  feet  at  low  water  was 
reported  in  the  channel  leading  up  to  Flushing.  A  map  of  Flushing 
Bav  is  printed  in  the  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1889,  page 
732. 

Flushing  Creek  is  a  small  tidal  stream  extending  southwardly  from 
Flushing  Bay.  and  navigable  at  high  tide  for  about  2  miles  from  the 
head  of  the  bay.    Irland  Mills  is  situated  on  this  creek  about  6,000 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YOEK. 


8 


feet  from  its  mouth.  Four  bridges  cross  this  creek — first,  the  Flush- 
ing Bridge,  near  the  bay;  second  and  third,  bridges  of  the  Long 
Island  Railroad,  and,  fourth,  Strong's  Causeway  Bridge,  situated  about 
2  miles  above  the  lower  bridge.  All  the  bridges  are  provided  with 
draws,  with  a  least  clear  opening  of  30  feet,  and  navigation  at  high 
tide  extends  to  a  point  just  above  Strong's  Causeway  Bridge.  The 
first  three  bridges  are  between  the  mouth  of  the  creek  and  Irland 
Mills. 

The  original  project  for  improving  Flushing  Ba}7,  adopted  in  1879, 
provided  for  the  building  of  16,700  feet  of  diking  to  create  a  tidal  basin 
intended  to  fill  and  discharge  through  the  main  channel,  thus  maintain- 
ing a  least  channel  depth  of  6  feet,  mean  low  water,  after  once  dredging. 
Estimated  cost,  $173,500.  The  project  was  modified  in  1888,  omitting 
part  of  the  diking,  and  again  in  1891,  limiting  the  same  to  one  dike 
on  the  west  side  of  the  channel  4,663  feet  long,  besides  dredging  and 
maintaining  a  channel  6  feet  deep,  mean  low  water,  up  to  the  lower 
bridge  at  Flushing.  The  mean  rise  of  the  tide  is  7.1  feet,  thus  making 
a  navigable  channel  at  high  water  of  about  13  feet. 

Work  under  this  project  began  in  1879,  and  covered  the  construction 
of  3,057  linear  feet  of  dike  at  the  head  of  the  bay.  As  much  opposi- 
tion to  the  project  was  manifested,  particularly  by  the  residents  and 
property  owners  on  the  west  side  of  the  bay,  further  work  on  the  dike 
was  suspended  until  1889,  when  it  was  repaired  and  extended  1,606 
linear  feet,  making  its  total  length  1,663  feet.  Appropriations  made 
in  the  mean  time  were  expended  in  making  and  maintaining  a  channel 
of  the  required  dimensions  by  means  of  dredging. 

In  1890"  petitions  were  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  War  protesting 
against  further  work  on  the  dike  and  against  the  dumping  of  dredged 
material  in  the  bay  west  of  the  same,  in  consequence  of  which,  and 
upon  the  recommendation  of  Col.  D.  C.  Houston,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
June  8,  1891,  the  project  was  modified,  and  all  subsequent  appropria- 
tions were  expended  toward  maintaining  the  channel  by  dredging. 
See  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1892,  page  723. 

On  June  30,  1901,  the  dike,  which  had  cost  about  $33,000  to  con- 
struct, was  in  poor  condition,  and  since  then  the  outer  part,  1,606  feet 
long,  left  partly  completed  in  1891,  has  been  nearly  destroyed  by  storm 
and  ice.  A  small  light  at  the  outer  (north)  end  of  the  dike,  maintained 
by  the  Light-House  Department,  prevents  the  dike  in  its  present  con- 
dition from  being  a  serious  menace  to  local  navigation.  The  dredged 
channel,  carried  to  a  depth  of  9  feet  in  order  to  secure  6  feet,  was  in 
good  condition  and  had  an  available  depth  at  that  time  of  over  6  feet, 
but  it  was  less  than  the  projected  width.  The  total  amount  expended 
in  dredging  is  about  $90,000. 

Colonel  Houston,  in  report  dated  September  5, 1888,  says: 

Independent  of  the  local  opposition,  I  am  doubtful  of  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
tidal  basin;  it  is  not  certain  that  the  ebb  current  will  follow  the  line  of  the  desired 
channel. 

He  was  of  the  opinion  at  that  time  that  the  removal  of  the  dike  was 
unnecessary. 

On  August  13,  1900,  Maj.  E.  H.  Ruffner,  Corps  of  Engineers,  sub- 
mitted a  report"  on  the  utility  of  this  improvement,  to  which  atten- 
tion is  invited. 

Since  the  improvement  of  Flushing  Bay  was  commenced,  the  limits 


<»  Not  printed. 


4 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


of  New  York  City  have  been  extended  so  as  to  include  the  bay,  and  a 
park  is  projected  on  its  west  shore.  It  would  seem  that  the  riparian 
owners  on  that  shore  should  have  the  same  use  of  the  improved  chan- 
nel as  those  on  the  east  shore  and  have  a  free  and  unobstructed  passage 
to  any  part  on  the  west  shore.  This  would  be  impossible  with  a  dike 
extending  through  the  bay  having  a  channel  only  on  one  side  of  it. 
The  maintenance  of  a  light  is  an  expense  which  will  be  done  away  with 
on  the  removal  of  the  dike  and  navigation  will  be  benefited  by  having 
the  bay  open  and  unobstructed. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  cost  of  removing1  the  present  dike  will  be 
somewhere  between  (10,000  and  $12,000.  The  unappropriated  balance 
of  the  original  estimated  cost  of  the  improvement  is  $50,500,  which 
would  probably  be  sufficient  to  remove  the  dike  and  maintain  a  channel 
G  feet  in  depth  and  of  sufficient  width  for  the  next  twenty  years. 

Experience  from  the  attempts  to  improve  the  channels  in  Huntington 
Harbor  and  in  Canarsie  channel,  Jamaica  Bay,  favors  the  improvement 
of  broad,  open,  tidal  bays  or  harbors  by  making  and  maintaining  chan- 
nels therein  by  dredging,  and  that  dikes  are  of  questionable  utility. 

From  the  above  consideration  it  is  recommended  that  the  incomplete, 
dilapidated,  and  virtually  abandoned  dike  in  Flushing  Bay  be  removed 
so  as  to  leave  the  bay  free  and  unobstructed,  the  part  to  be  removed 
first  being  the  outer  or  north  portion,  1,606  feet  long,  which  was  left 
partly  completed  in  1891,  and  which  has  since  been  nearly  destroyed  by 
storms  and  ice. 

The  question  as  to  extending  the  improvement  up  Flushing  Creek 
to  Irland  Mills  has  not  before  been  considered,  and  all  work  hereto- 
fore done  has  been  confined  to  the  channel  through  the  bay  up  to  the 
first  bridge  across  the  creek.  Inquiries  recently  made  by  this  office 
have  developed  the  fact  that  considerable  commerce  passes  up  the 
creek,  amounting  to  about  69,250  tons  yearly,  carried  in  vessels  which 
draw  when  loaded  14  feet.  These  vessels  can  only  navigate  at  extreme 
high  tide.  Docks  have  been  erected  along  the  creek  between  the  lower 
bridge  and  Irland  Mills  by  dealers  in  coal,  lumber,  feed,  and  grain. 
Four  of  these  docks  are  now  in  use  above  the  bridge. 

The  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  13,  1902,  contained  an  appropria- 
tion of  §39,500  for  "improving  harbors  at  Port  Jefferson,  Hunting- 
ton, Glencove,  Flushing  Bay,  Canarsie  Bay,  and  Sag  Harbor,  New 
York,  of  which  $2,000  was  allotted  to  Flushing  Bay.  A  project  for 
the  expenditure  of  this  amount  was  submitted  by  this  office  July  14, 
1902,  and  approved  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  August  5, 1902.  It  pro- 
posed to  expend  the  amount  in  redredging  the  channel  for  maintenance 
whenever  it  becomes  necessary. 

The  total  commerce  of  Flushing  Bay  and  Creek  since  1895  is  reported 
as  follows: 


The  principal  articles  transported  are  coal,  building  materials,  dye- 
woods,  logwood  extracts,  and  farm  produce,  amounting  in  value  to 
about  Si, 818,600.  The  vessels  are  steamers,  tugs,  sailing  vessels,  and 
barges,  drawing  from  6  to  14  feet  when  fully  loaded.    The  total  num- 


Tona. 


Tons. 


1895 
1896 
1897 
1899 


150,  376 
80,  820 
163, 395 
158,  755 


1900 
1901 
1902 


177,575 
£00, 473 
155, 450 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YOKK. 


5 


berof  trips  made  last  year  was  1,418.  About  45  per  cent  of  the  ton- 
nage for  1902  passed  up  the  creek  above  the  bridge. 

In  my  opinion  Flushing  Creek  is  worthy  of  improvement  by  the 
General  Government,  and  I  therefore  report  in  favor  of  extending  the 
channel  to  Irland  Mills.  If  this  view  is  concurred  in  by  the  Depart- 
ment, I  would  suggest  that  a  survey  be  made,  and  that  the  sum  of  $400 
be  allotted  for  the  purpose.  This  survey  will  enable  me  to  make  an 
estimate  for  removing  the  dike,  dredging  the  channel  where  necessary 
through  the  bay,  and  extending  the  channel  to  Irland  Mills. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.  M.  Mansfield, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

Brig.  Gen.  G.  L.  Gillespie, 

Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 

[First  indorsement.] 

Office  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 

February  U,  1903. 
Respectfully  referred  to  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Har- 
bors constituted  by  Special  Orders,  No.  24,  Headquarters,  Corps  of 
Engineers,  series  of  1902,  for  consideration  and  recommendation,  as 
required  by  section  3  of  the  act  of  June  13,  1902. 

Report  of  August  13,  1900,  by  Maj.  E.  H.  Ruffner,  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, is  herewith. 
By  command  of  Brig.  Gen.  Gillespie: 

A.  Mackenzie, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

[Second  indorsement.] 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  11, 1903. 
Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 
The  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors  has  given  due  con- 
sideration to  the  within  report  of  the  district  officer. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Board  the  present  and  reasonably  prospective 
commerce  involved  is  such  as  to  render  this  locality  worthy  of  a  mod- 
erate improvement,  provided  such  improvement  can  be  made  at  reason- 
able cost. 

The  Board  therefore  recommends  that  there  be  made  an  allotment  of 
$400  for  a  survey  and  estimate  of  cost,  as  recommended  by  the  district 
officer. 

For  the  Board: 

H.  F.  Hodges, 

Major,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Senior  Member  Present. 

[Third  indorsement.] 

Office  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 

March  U,  1903. 

Respectfully  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 
This  is  a  report  on  prelimimvry  examination  of  Flushing  Bay,  New 
York,  authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  13,  1902. 
Inviting  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers 


6 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


and  Harbors  in  the  preceding  indorsement,  I  recommend  that  a  survey 
of  the  locality,  as  proposed,  be  authorized. 

A.  Mackenzie, 

Acting  Chief  of  Engineers. 

[Fourth  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 

March  23,  1903. 

Approved  as  recommended  by  the  Acting  Chief  of  Engineers. 

VVm.  Caby  Sanger, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

[Ten tli  indorsement.] 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  December  1,  J904-. 
Respectfully  returned  to  theChief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 
The  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors  has  given  consider- 
ation to  the  further  reports  of  the  district  officer  contained  in  eighth 
indorsement3  hereon,  and  in  an  additional  report,  dated  June  21, 1904, 
accompanying. 

The  existing  project  for  the  improvement  of  Flushing  Bay,  adopted 
March  3,  187!),  and  modified  September  19,  1888,  provides  for  making 
and  maintaining  a  channel  6  feet  deep  and  200  feet  wide  at  mean  low 
water  up  to  the  lower  bridge  at  Flushing,  and  for  building  a  dike 
4,663  feet  long  on  the  west  sjde  of  the  channel  in  Flushing  Bay  to  pro- 
tect it  from  filling.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  work  was  $173,500. 
There  had  been  expended  up  to  June  30,  1903,  $122,540.53. 

It  was  originally  intended  that  the  dike  should  create  a  tidal  basin 
in  the  bay,  and  it  was  expected  that  by  means  of  the  flow  and  ebb  of 
the  tides  a  channel  would  be  formed  and  maintained. 

The  original  project  was  never  fully  carried  out.  Work  was  sus- 
pended on  the  dike  in  1891  before  its  completion  because  of  opposition 
by  adjacent  property  owners.  A  gap  of  about  1,000  feet  wide  was 
left  at  the  shore  or  upper  end,  and  the  outer  1,600  feet  was  only  par- 
tially built.  As  a  result  of  the  incomplete  work  the  object  of  provid- 
ing a  tidal  basin  was  never  fully  effected.  An  examination  of  the 
map  discloses  an  irregular  channel  of  the  projected  depth,  but  of  much 
less  than  the  projected  width. 

The  questions  presented  in  the  act  of  June  13,  1902,  and  now  under 
consideration,  are — 

First.  Shall  the  dike  be  repaired,  completed,  or  removed? 

Second.  Shall  the  channel  be  extended  to  Irland  Mills? 

In  second  indorsement  hereon  the  Board  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  commerce  involved  is  such  as  to  render  this  locality  worthy  of  a 
moderate  improvement,  provided  such  improvement  can  be  made  at 
reasonable  cost.    The  amount  of  commerce  is  reported  as  follows: 


Tons. 

1899  158,  755 

1900  177,575 


Tons. 

1901  200,  473 

1902  186,000 


amounting  in  value  to  about  $1,800,000  in  1902.  Of  this  amount  about 
68,000  tons  passes  above  the  Broadway  Bridge  (the  .upper  end  of  the 
present  project)  and  about  34,000  tons  passes  above  the  Main  Street 
Bridge.    It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  total  traffic  affected  by  the 

a  Not  printed. 


FLUSHING  BAT,  NEW  YORK. 


7 


improvement  is  considerable,  but  that  only  about  20  per  cent  of  it 
applies  to  that  portion  of  the  river  above  the  Main  Street  Bridge  in 
the  vicinity  of  Irland  Mills,  while  about  40  per  cent  of  it  utilizes  the 
stretch  between  the  Broadway  and  Main  Street  bridges. 

The  district  officer  expresses  the  opinion  that  on  account  of  the 
small  amount  of  commerce  passing  above  the  Main  Street  Bridge  and 
the  slight  desire  evinced  for  an  improved  channel,  he  does  not  consider 
the  improvement  above  that  bridge  desirable  at  this  time. 

With  reference  to  the  dike  he  expresses  the  opinion  that  it  should 
be  retained  and  modified,  and  that  the  channel  should  be  extended  to 
the  Main  Street  Bridge  with  a  width  of  100  feet  between  the  bridges. 
The  estimated  cost  of  this  work,  with  the  projected  channel  depth  of 
6  feet,  is  given  at  169,512.90. 

After  careful  consideration  the  Board  has  arrived  at  the  following 
conclusions: 

The  extension  of  the  existing  improvement  to  Irland  Mills  does  not 
seem  to  be  warranted  either  by  present  or  prospective  demands  of 
commerce.  The  Board,  however,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  projected 
6-foot  channel  can  advantageously  be  extended  from  the  Broadway 
Bridge  to  the  Main  Street  Bridge,  though  with  a  width  of  100  feet 
instead  of  200  feet  between  the  bridges. 

As  to  the  dike,  a  study  of  the  soundings  and  experience  at  other 
places  tend  to  show  that,  except  possibly  at  its  inner  (shore)  end,  it  is 
not  an  essential  part  of  the  improvement.  It  does  not  appear,  how- 
ever, that  at  the  present  time  the  dike  is  a  serious  menace  to  naviga- 
tion, and  the  Board  therefore  recommends  that  it  be  left  as  it  is  until 
it  can  be  seen  from  further  developments  whether  that  part  of  the 
channel  along  the  dike  is  maintained  any  better  than  that  portion  of 
the  channel  beyond  the  dike,  and  that  then  it  be  removed  or  repaired 
and  extended,  as  developments  may  indicate  best. 

In  view  of  what  precedes,  the  Board  recommends  as  desirable  the 
further  improvement  of  Flushing  Bay,  New  York,  by  the  United  States, 
in  accordance  with  a  modified  project  which  shall  provide  for  a  channel 
200  feet  wide  and  6  feet  deep  at  low  water,  from  Long  Island  Sound 
to  the  Broadway  Bridge,  and  for  a  channel  of  the  same  depth  and  100 
feet  wide  from  the  Broadway  Bridge  to  the  Main  Street  Bridge,  by 
means  of  dredging,  at  an  estimated  cost  of  $23,857.90,  and  that  no  work 
toward  repairing,  completing,  or  removing  the  dike  be  undertaken  at 
present. 

For  the  Board: 

D.  W.  Lockwood, 

Lieut.  Col.,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Senior'  Member  of  the  Board. 


survey  of  flushing  bay,  new  york. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  June  21,  190^. 
General:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  upon  the 
survey  of  Flushing  Bay  and  Creek.    A  preliminary  report  upon  this 
locality  was  made  by  my  predecessor,  Col.  S.  M.  Mansfield,  Corps  of 
Engineers  (now  brigadier-general,  retired),  in  accordance  with  the 


8 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YOKK. 


provisions  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  13,  1902,  requiring  a 
preliminary  examination  of  Flushing  Bay,  with  a  view  to  repairing, 
completing,  or  removing  the  dike  in  said  bay  and  extending  the  channel 
to  Irland  .Mills. 

The  preliminary  report  of  Colonel  Mansfield  was  referred  by  the 
Chief  of  Engineers  to  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 
which,  in  an  indorsement  of  March  11,  1903,  stated: 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Board  the  present  and  reasonably  prospective  commerce 
involved  i.s  such  as  to  render  this  locality  worthy  of  a  moderate  improvement,  pro- 
vided such  improvement  can  be  made  at  reasonable  cost. 

The  Board  therefore  recommends  that  there  be  made  an  allotment  of  $400  for  a 
survey  and  estimate  of  cost,  as  recommended  by  the  district  officer. 

The  action  taken  upon  the  above  was  the  assignment  to  me  of  the 
duty  of  making  a  survey  and  estimate  of  cost  of  improvement,  and 
allotting  therefor  the  sum  of  $400.  In  the  letter"  of  the  Chief  of  Engi- 
neers, dated  March  20,  1903,  assigning  the  duty  to  me,  it  was  stated, 
after  quoting  the  above  opinion  of  the  Board: 

It  is  desired  that  your  report  be  submitted  in  duplicate  as  required,  and  that  it  eon- 
tain  an  expression  of  opinion,  based  upon  the  results  of  the  survey,  as  to  the  extent 
of  improvement  at  this  locality  justified  by  the  commercial  interests,  present  and 
prospective,  involved. 

The  survey  was  placed  under  the  supervision  of  First  Lieut.  J.  R. 
Slattery,  Corps  of  Engineers.  Field  work  was  carried  on  between  the 
dates  of  May  23  and  .June  27,  1903,  but  owing  to  press  of  work  and 
small  force  in  this  office,  the  plotting  was  delayed  until  late  in  the 
year. 

The  questions  presented  in  the  act  of  June  13,  1902,  are:  First,  as 
to  what  should  be  done  with  the  dike,  and,  second,  should  the  channel 
(presumably  the  existing  channel)  be  extended  to  Irland  Mills?  In  the 
preliminary  report  of  Colonel  Mansfield,  submitted  before  the  survey 
was  made,  it  was  recommended  that  the  dike  be  removed  and  the 
channel  extended  to  Irland  Mills.  From  the  investigations  and  survey, 
I  think  it  advisable  that  the  dike  should  be  retained,  and  modified;  and, 
from  the  statement  of  Lieutenant  Slattery  of  the  small  amount  of 
commerce  passing  above  the  Main  Street  Bridge,  and  the  slight  desire 
evinced  for  an  improved  channel,  I  consider  the  question  of  improve- 
ment above  that  bridge  as  one  that  is  not  urgent  at  this  time,  and  that 
might  be  left  until  a  later  date. 

The  map  of  the  survey  is  transmitted  herewith,  and  shows  a  channel 
having  considerable  variation  in  depths.  Along  the  Flushing  front 
the  depths  vary  from  8.5  to  20  feet,  and  from  the  mouth  of  the  creek 
to  the  end  of  the  dike  a  narrow  channel,  with  a  central  depth  of  8  to 
9  feet,  is  found,  and  this  depth  is  decreased  by  a  foot  or  two  from  the 
end  of  the  dike  to  East  River. 

The  estimate  of  cost  of  items  referred  to  in  paragraph  18  of  Colonel 
Mansfield's  report  is  as  follows: 

For  removing  dike   $12, 000. 00 

Dredging  6-foot  channel,  200  feet  wide,  through  the  bay  from  East  River 

to  Broadway  Bridge  on  the  creek,  76,162  cubic  yards,  at  28  cents   21,  325.  36 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent  •     2, 132. 54 

23, 457.  90 

Annual  cost  of  maintenance   2, 500. 00 


a  Not  printed. 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


9 


Dredging  6-foot  channel,  100  feet  wide,  low«er  bridge  to  Main  Street 

Bridge,  1,212  cubic  yards,  at  30  cents   $363.  60 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent   36. 40 

400. 00 

Annual  cost  of  maintenance   100.  00 

Dredging  6-foot  channel,  100  feet  wide,  Main  Street  Bridge  to  Irland 

Mills,  10,981  cubic  yards,  at  30  cents   3, 294.  30 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent   329. 43 

3, 623.  73 

Annual  cost  of  maintenance   600.  00 

Total  cost  #   39,481.63 

Annual  cost  of  maintenance   3, 200. 00 

As  heretofore  stated,  I  do  not  recommend  the  removal  of  the  dike 
nor  the  present  extension  of  the  channel  improvement  above  Main 
Street  Bridge. 

The  history  of  the  improvement  at  this  locality  shows  that  the  origi- 
nal plan  of  forming  a  tidal  basin  in  the  bay  to  produce  a  current 
through  the  bay  channel  was  abandoned;  and  while  the  dike  along  a 
considerable  part  of  the  channel  through  the  bay  was  constructed,  it 
served  as  scarcely  more  than  a  guide  for  navigation,  as  the  upper  end 
was  left  at  a  distance  of  about  1,000  feet  from  the  shore,  thus  permit- 
ting the  flow  of  the  tide  coming  out  of  the  creek  upon  the  ebb  to  be 
divided,  much  of  it  passing  around  the  head  of  the  dike,  and  thus 
greatly  reducing  the  velocity  along  the  channel  side  of  the  dike.  Not- 
withstanding this,  the  dike  has  had  some  effect  in  keeping  the  water 
deep  enough  to  make  a  well-defined  channel. 

An  examination  of  the  map  shows  that  the  tidal  flow  in  the  creek 
where  the  water  is  confined  maintains  a  channel  of  considerably  greater 
navigable  capacity  than  that  through  the  bay.  There  has  been  con- 
siderable opposition  manifested  heretofore  to  the  presence  of  the  dike 
by  those  not  particularly  interested  in  maintaining  a  channel  into 
Flushing  Creek.  In  order  that  1  might  learn  just  how  much  weight 
should  be  attached  to  this  opposition,  interviews  were  held  with  the 
owners  found  upon  their  property,  and  circular  letters  were  addressed 
to  all  other  owners  of  property  on  the  bay  shore  whose  addresses 
could  be  found  (copies  inclosed).  But  few  replies  have  been  received, 
and  those  that  are  unfavorable  to  the  maintenance  and  extension  of 
the  dike  are  based  on  trivial  grounds.  The  following  synopsis  shows 
the  opinions  expressed: 


Name  and  locality. 


A.  M.  Ryon,  Flushing  Creek 

Business  Men's  Association 
of  Flushing. 


O.  J.  Talleur,  Corona  

Harway  Dyewood  and  Ex- 
tract Manufacturing  Co., 
Flushing. 

C.  W.  Copp,  Flushing  

New  York  and  Queens  Elec- 
tric Light  and  Power  Co., 
Long  Island  City. 

E.  Piatt  Stratton,  College 
Point. 


Opinion. 


Removal  of  dike  would  he  a  mistake,  as  velocity  in  channel  is  increased 
by  dike. 

Passed  resolution,  "The  retention  of  the  dike  is  the  only  means  of  keep- 
ing the  channel  from  filling  up."  Win.  H.  Kent,  captain  of  steamer 
L.  Boyer,  the  only  hoat  making  regular  trips  to  Flushing,  concurred 
in  above  resolution. 

I  do  not  think  the  removal  of  the  dike  would  be  worth  the  money  spent. 

Dike  should  be  thoroughly  repaired  and  lengthened  at  both  ends. 

Should  be  either  repaired  or  removed;  no  opinion  as  to  which. 
Dike  should  be  extended  and  repaired  or  completed. 

Interest  of  all  concerned  will  be  best  served  by  removal  of  dike,  par- 
ticularly the  southern  end,  in  order  that  a  proper  approach  could  be 
macte  to  a  proposed  (not  recently)  bridge.  Understood  that  the  pur- 
pose of  the  dike  had  been  abandoned. 


10 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YORK. 


Name  and  locality. 


Opinion. 


Dr.  R.  C.  P.  Combes,  Corona. 
K.  L.  Baylies,  Corona  

Wm.  A.  Sands,  Corona  

P.J.  Mara,  Flushing  

Thomas  Hkeuse,  Flushing  . . 

Louis  Fisher,  Corona  

Fred  Wcnzel,  Corona  

A.  W.  Pert-sch,  Corona  

Scawanhaka    Boat  Club, 

Corona. 
C.  L.  Sicardi  


Remove  the  dike  as  unsightly  and  of  no  account. 

Proposed  extension  would  tend  to  increase  the  deposit  of  mud  in  the 

bay  and  interfere  with  bathing  and  boating. 
Remove  the  dike  as  an  injury  to  the  bay,  it  having  caused  the  bay  to 

fill  up. 
Uo. 

Retain  the  dike  to  keep  the  mud  now  west  of  the  dike  out  of  the  chan-, 

nel. 

Opposes  the  extension;  keeping  the  tide  out  of  the  bay  would  tend  to 
increase  the  deposit  of  mud  and  interfere  with  his  business  of  boat- 
building and  keeping. 

Remove  the  dike,  let  the  mud  from- the  bay  flow  into  the  channel, 
dredge  the  channel,  and  so  continue  until  the  entire  bay  has  been 
carried  out  by  the  dredging. 

No  objection  to  extension  of  dike  southeastward 

No  objection  to  extension  of  dike  unless  it  would  cause  the  western  side 
of  the  bay  to  shallow. 

(Representing  the  owners  of  3,000  feet  of  water  front  on  the  west  side 
of  bay.)  Withdraws  all  objection  and  favoni  the  proposed  improve- 
ment. 


In  my  opinion,  a  dike  through  the  bay  is  necessary  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  channel,  unless  considerable  dredging  is  to  be  repeated  at 
short  intervals,  especially  if  this  channel  is  to  be  made  and  maintained 
of  sufficient  depth  to  materially  improve  the  commercial  facilities  "l' 
the  region  about  the  bay  and  creek.  I  therefore  consider  it  advisable 
to  thoroughly  repair  the  dike,  building  it  up  to  1  foot  above  high 
water,  and  to  extend  it  from  the  upper  end  to  connect  with  the  shore. 
This,  with  the  dredging  up  to  Main  Street  Bridge,  would  provide  a  chan- 
nel 6  feet  deep,  200  fee<  wide,  through  the  bay,  and  100  feet  wide  from 
lower  bridge  to  Main  Street  Bridge,  and  I  believe  it  would  be  fairly 
permanent,  costing  very  little  for  maintenance. 

The  range  of  tide  is  about  7  feet,  and  it  is  believed  that  the  velocity  of 
flow,  due  to  this  variation  of  water  level  in  filling  and  emptying  twice 
each  day  the  tidal  basin  of  Flushing  Creek,  would  maintain  consider- 
able depth  in  a  confined  channel  through  the  bay. 

The  estimate  of  cost  is: 

Repairing  and  raising  existing  dike   $31, 655.  00 

Extending  dike  to  the  shore,  1,000  feet,  at  $14  per  linear  foot   14, 000. 00 

Dredging   23, 857. 90 

Total   69, 512. 90 

This  work  would  perhaps  accomplish  all  that  would  be  properly 
included  under  the  inquiry  of  Congress,  but  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
a  deeper  channel  should  be  provided  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  present 
and  prospective  commerce. 

The  instructions  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  required  an  expression 
of  opinion,  based  upon  the  results  of  the  surveys  as  to  the  extent  of 
improvement  at  this  locality  justified  by  the  commercial  interests, 
present  and  prospective,  involved.  The  great  growth  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  which  now  includes  the  shores  of  Flushing  Bay  and  Creek, 
produces  a  constantly  increasing  demand  for  more  facilities  for  han- 
dling water-borne  commerce.  The  great  value  of  water  front  along 
the  older  portions  of  the  city  makes  it  desirable  for  new  enterprises 
to  locate  where  it  enn  be  done  at  less  expense.  A  channel  with  only 
6  feet  of  depth  does  not  present  facilities  for  handling  commerce  in 
vessels  of  any  considerable  size. 

In  Lieutenant  Slattery's  report,  two  estimates  are  presented  for 
improvement  up  to  Main  Street  Bridge,  one  for  a  channel  100  feet 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NEW  YOKK. 


11 


wide  and  12  feet  deep  at  mean  low  water  from  East  River  up  to  the 
Broadway  Bridge,  with  a  diminished  channel  of  100  feet  width  and  8 
feet  depth  from  Broadway  Bridge  to  Main  Street  Bridge.  The  cost 
was  estimated  at  $87,201.87,  and  for  maintenance  $6,000  per  year. 
The  second  estimate  was  for  a  channel  of  same  dimensions  as  above, 
except  that  the  depth  from  East  River  to  Broadway  Bridge  was 
reduced  to  10  feet,  the  estimate  of  cost  being  $11,653.83,  and  for 
maintenance  $4,000  per  year.  Including  the  repairing  and  extension 
of  the  dike  the  estimates  would  be: 

For  channel  100  feet  wide,  12  feet  deep  at  mean  low  water,  to  Broadway 
Bridge,  and  8  feet  deep  from  Broadway  Bridge  to  Main  Street  Bridge: 

Dike  work   $45, 655. 00 

Dredging   87, 204. 87 

Total   132,859.87 

For  channel  100  feet  wide,  10  feet  deep  at  mean  low  water,  to  Broadway 
Bridge,  and  8  feet  deep  from  Broadway  Bridge  to  Main  Street  Bridge: 

Dike  work   45, 655.  00 

Dredging   41,653.83 

Total   87, 308.  83 

With  the  dike  modified  as  proposed,  the  maintenance  of  either  chan- 
nel to  the  end  of  the  dike  would  be  a  matter  of  small  annual  cost,  as 
the  confined  tidal  flow  would  probably  keep  it  pretty  well  scoured  out. 
Some  dredging  would  probably  be  required  in  the  open  bay  from  the 
end  of  the  dike  to  East  River,  which  I  would  estimate  at  about  $3,000 
per  annum.  This  could  be  largely  reduced  by  extending  the  dike 
about  4,000  feet.  The  extension  of  the  dike  4,000  feet  at  the  lower 
end  it  is  estimated  would  cost  $56,000,  which,  added  to  the  above 
estimates,  would  require  for  a  complete  improvement  for  a  12-foot 
channel,  $188,859.87;  for  a  10-foot  channel,  $143,308.83. 

The  establishment  of  a  harbor  line  parallel  to  the  dike,  at  a  distance 
of  400  or  500  feet  from  it,  would  afford  ample  opportunity  for  numer- 
ous docks  from  College  Point  to  Flushing. 

Under  present  conditions  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  extent  of  improve- 
ment at  this  locality,  justified  by  the  commercial  interests  involved, 
would  be  to  make  the  10-foot  channel  to  Broadway  Bridge,  thence  to 
Main  Street  Bridge  an  8-foot  channel,  with  modifications  of  dike,  at  the 
estimated  cost  of  $87,308.83,  with  a  view  to  a  future  extension  of 
the  dike  about  4,000  feet  and  deepening  of  channel  to  12  feet  up  to  the 
Broadway  Bridge. 

The  report  of  Lieutenant  Slattery  is  transmitted  herewith. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Amos  Sticknet, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

Brig.  Gen.  A.  Mackenzie, 

Chief  of  Engineers,  77.  S.  A. 


report  of  lieut.  j.  r.  slattery,  corps  of  engineers. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  7,  1904. 
Colonel:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  as  follows  on  the  survey  of  Flushing  Bay 
and  Creek: 

2.  The  field  work  was  limited  to  a  survey  of  the  creek  and  improved  channel 


12 


FLUSHING  BAY,  NKW  YORK. 


through  the  bay.    The  map  accompanying  thiH  report  was  compiled  from  the  field 

noteH  of  recent  survey  and  maps  on  file  in  this  office. 

3.  Flushing  Bay  is  a  shallow  bay  about  1  mile  wide  and  2  miles  long,  lying  on  the 
north  side  of  Long  Island,  about  14  miles  from  the  Battery,  New  York  City.  The 
bottom  of  the  bay  and  creek  is  soft  mini.    The  mean  rise  of  the  tide  is  7.1  feet. 

4.  The  first  project  for  this  improvement  was  adopted  March  3,  1879,  and  an  appro- 
priation for  the  work  was  made.  The  project  contemplated  diking  to  form  a  large 
tidal  basin  and  dredging  a  channel  from  the  Broadway  Bridge  in  Flushing  to  the 
0-foot  curve  in  the  bay.  This  channel  it  was  thought  would  be  maintained  by  the 
flow  of  water  from  the  tidal  basin.  The  estimated  cost  was  $173,500.  This  project 
was  subsequently  modified  in  1888,  to  omit  a  part  of  the  diking,  and  again  in  1891, 
when  4,063  feet  of  diking  had  been  built,  to  omit  all  further  diking  and  to  count  on 
maintaining  the  channel  by  dredging  alone.  A  channel  8  feet  deep  and  100  feet  wide 
was  dredged  with  the  view  of  obtaining  a  6-foot  channel.  The  6-foot  channel  now 
varies  in  width  from  50  to  over  100  feet.  Throughout  ite  length  there  is  a  narrow 
channel  with  deeper  water.  A  study  of  the  soundings  seems  to  indicate  that  the  dike 
does  not  have  any  effect  in  maintaining  the  channel.  The  channel  beyond  the  dike 
has  maintained  itself  about  as  well  as  that  part  of  channel  along  the  dike.  The  creek 
consists  of  a  series  of  pools  separated  by  bars. 

5.  A  channel  12  feet  deep  at  meaw  low  water  and  100  feet  wide,  from  th»  12-foot 
curve  in  the  Sound  to  the  Broadway  Bridge,  and  thence  8  feet  deep  and  100  feet  wide 
tolrland  Mills,  would  meet  the  present  needs  of  nearly  all  business  interests  now  using 
the  bay  and  creek.  The  commerce,  as  reported  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  Chief 
of  Engineers,  amounted  to  158,755  tons  in  1899,  177,575  tons  in  1900,  200,473  tons  in 
1901,  and  186,000  tons  in  1902.  From  inquiries  made  of  all  interested  parties  whom 
I  could  find,  I  should  estimate  the  commerce  in  the  creek  above  the  Broadway 
Bridge  at  about  08,000  tons.  Only  about  half  of  this  amount  passes  up  beyond  the 
Main  Street  Bridge.  I  do  not  consider  that  the  small  amount  of  commerce  pa«sing 
above  the  Main  Street  Bridge  warrants  the  improvement  being  carried  above  that 
point.  The  desire  for  the  improvement  beyowi  this  point  is  slight,  and  what  desire 
there  is  is  based  more  on  the  hope  of  causing  factories  to  locate  there  than  on  any 
present  actual  needs.  As  there  still  remains  plenty  of  room  for  factories  below  this 
point,  I  believe  that  the  improvement  between  Main  Street  Bridge  and  Irland  Mills 
should  not  be  undertaken  at  the  present  time. 

6.  The  following  estimate  is  for  a  channel  12  feet  deep  and  100  feet  wide,  at  mean 
low  water,  from  the  12-foot  curve  in  the  Sound  to  the  Broadway  Bridge,  and  a  channel 
8  feet  deep  and  100  feet  wide,  at  mean  low  water,  thence  to  the  Main  Street  Bridge. 

For  the  removal  of  276,192  cubic  yards  of  mud  between  the  12-foot  curve 

in  Sound  and  the  Broadway  Bridge,  at  28  cents   $77,  333.  76 

For  the  removal  of  6,478  cubic  yards  of  mud  between  the  Broadwav  and 

Main  Street  bridges,  at  30  cents   1, 943. 40 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent   7, 927. 71 


Total   87, 204. 87 

For  maintenance,  $6,000  per  year. 

7.  This  seems  to  be  quite  the  maximum  limit  to  which  the  locality  is  now  worthy 
of  improvement  by  the  United  States. 

8.  To  continue  the  8-foot  channel  to  Irland  Mills  would  necessitate  the  removal  of 
27,159  cubic  yards  of  mud  in  addition  to  the  amounts  above  estimated.  The  cost  of 
removing  this  is  estimated  at  $8,962.47.  The  total  estimate  for  carrying  the  improve- 
ment to  this  point  is,  therefore,  $96,167.34. 

9.  The  cost  of  the  removal  of  the  dike  is  estimated  at  $12,000. 

10.  While  a  study  of  the  channel  seems  to  indicate  that  the  dike  does  not  serve  in 
the  least  to  maintain  the  channel,  I  would  recommend  that  for  the  present  it  1  /e  left  as 
it  is  (being lighted  and  buoyed  so  as  not  to  endanger  navigation)  until  it  can  be  seen 
from  further  developments  whether  that  part  of  the  channel  along  the  dike  is  main- 
tained any  better  than  that  portion  of  the  channel  beyond  the  dike,  and  that  then  it 
be  removed  or  repaired  and  extended  as  developments  may  indicate  best. 

11.  A  channel  10  feet  deep  and  100  feet  wide  up  to  the  Broadway  Bridge,  and  thence 
8  feet  deep  and  100  feet  wide  up  to  the  Main  Street  Bridge,  would  meet  the  present 
needs  of  most  of  the  interested  concerns.  It,  however,  would  fail  to  meet  the  needs 
of  the  Harway  Dyewood  and  Extract  Company,  which  appears  to  be  one  of  the  con- 
cerns that  make  the  greatest  use  of  the  improvement. 


FLUSHING  BAT,  NEW  YORK.  13 

12.  The  following  is  the  estimated  cost  of  the  channel  described  in  paragraph  11: 

For  removing  128,299  cubic  yards  of  mud  between  the  10-foot  curve  in 

Sound  and  the  Broadway  Bridge,  at  28  cents   $35,  923.  72 

For  removing  6,478  cubic  yards  of  mud  between  Broadway  and  Main 

Street  bridges,  at  30  cents   1, 943. 40 


37, 867. 12 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent   3,  786.  71 


Total   41, 653.  83 

Maintenance,  $4,000  per  year. 


13.  If  continuing  contracts  should  be  authorized  for  entire  work,  the  above  esti- 
mates could  be  reduced  10  per  cent. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  R.  Slattery, 
First  Lieut,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

Col.  Amos  Stickney, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 


CIRCULAR  LETTERS  ADDRESSED  TO  CERTAIN  RIPARIAN  OWNERS  ALONG  THE  LINE  OP  THE 

PROPOSED  IMPROVEMENT. 

(A.) 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  August  22,  1903. 
Sir:  The  question  as  to  the  further  improvement  of  Flushing  Bay  and  the  contin- 
uation of  the  improvement  up  to  Irland  Mills,  and  the  repair  or  removal  of  the 
breakwater,  is  about  to  be  taken  up  in  this  office.  Will  you  please  favor  me  with 
your  opinion  as  to  what  further  improvement,  if  any,  is  needed,  what  depth  and 
width  of  channel  is  needed,  to  what  point  the  improvement  should  be  carried,  and 
what  amount  of  commerce  would  be  benefited  thereby. 
An  early  reply  is  requested. 

Very  respectfully,  J.  R.  Slattery, 

First  Lieut.,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


(B.) 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  May  6,  1904. 
Sir:  A  project  is  under  consideration  by  this  office  for  the  extension  of  the  dike  in 
Flushing  Bay  southeastward  to  join  the  shore. 

The  object  of  this  is  to  confine  the  tidal  flow  into  and  out  of  Flushing  Creek  to  the 
navigable  channel  through  the  bay  to  assist  in  maintaining  the  depth,  which  under 
present  conditions  constantly  deteriorates. 

Please  inform  me  if  you  know  of  any  valid  objection  to  such  extension  of  the  dike 
which  ought  to  weigh  against  the  maintenance  of  the  channel. 
Very  respectfully, 

Amos  Stickney, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

o 


Avery  Arc  hitectiiral  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gii  t  of  Seymour  B.  Di  rst  Old  York  Library 


